piratesfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Letters of Marque
The article states that King George II signed the letters of marque depicted in the film, but the actual letters of marque carry the portrait and signature of King George I. Does the actual depiction from the film not take precedence over a later book? 17:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) :If Jack Sparrow was approximately 15 years old in 1716 (Pirates of the Caribbean: Jack Sparrow: The Coming Storm), and he was around 40 years old in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, than events of the Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End takes place in 1740s, during the reign of King George II.--Uskok 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) ::Yes, but "The Coming Storm" should not take precedence over the films, right? The letters of marque are a clearly displayed item in Dead Man's Chest, and they show the portrait and signature of King George I, not George II. They followed it up in At World's End by citing "King George" rather than "King George II." Does an ex post facto children's book actually take precedence over something that was clearly shown in the films? Is that not the reverse of how canon is to be applied? 01:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC) :::I also wanted to add that I doubt it was simply a coincidence that the letters of marque bore the portrait and signature of King George I. The letters of marque were an immensely vital prop in the film. I am currently watching it again, and the signature and portrait are clearly visible almost every time the letters are brought out. Also, Port Royal was no longer a major port by the 1740-50s due to fires, flooding, and hurricanes. It was, however, still active in the 1720s including hanging pirates at Gallows Point including the hangings of "Calico" Jack Rackham and Charles Vane in 1720 and 1721, respectively. Gallows Point is depicted as being "active" in The Curse of the Black Pearl. Do the books by Rob Kidd supersede unambiguous items such as the letters of marque that come straight from the films? 01:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC) :I have a possibility answering how it could be Geroge II who signed it yet it bears the portrait of George I: It is possible that Beckett simply used an older, unused Letter of Marque (unlikely, but possible). With regards to the signature, many Kings do not always sign their numeral with their name. If I remember correctly, when Edward VIII abdicated, he simply signed the papers as Edward without the VIII. 03:22, August 18, 2010 (UTC) ::I am sorry but I have to ask where the behind the scene's quote actually comes from? I've checked the screen play published by Ted Eliott and Terry Russio and I've checked the leaked early draft of POTC 3. None of the contain any new information about the letter of marques. If there is another first draft with this information it should be linked in the sources. 10:08, November 19, 2018 (UTC) :::It comes from a version of the script that's very hard to find online these days. But the quote is accurate. I have a printed copy of that script and I'll type it down here sooner or later.--Uskok''Viceroy of the Indies'', ''Nemesis'' 18:29, November 19, 2018 (UTC)